You mean clearly ranks higher than them on clay. There is not one person in tennis history who can rival his record on the surface.

There is a shift here.

The topic was comparing Nadal with Borg, and I pointed out that Borg's Wimbledon record was superior to Nadal.
Then someone jumped to Rosewall, forgetting the Nadal/Borg comparison.

Two different topics.

On clay, I would not rank Nadal above Rosewall, Trabert, or Hoad, or possibly Lendl.
All of these players were overwhelming on clay, and the first three competed against each other to divide up the RG titles of the era.

Nadal has had little serious competition on clay. Federer is not a natural clay player.

The topic was comparing Nadal with Borg, and I pointed out that Borg's Wimbledon record was superior to Nadal.
Then someone jumped to Rosewall, forgetting the Nadal/Borg comparison.

Two different topics.

On clay, I would not rank Nadal above Rosewall, Trabert, or Hoad, or possibly Lendl.
All of these players were overwhelming on clay, and the first three competed against each other to divide up the RG titles of the era.

Nadal has had little serious competition on clay. Federer is not a natural clay player.

If Federer is not a natural clay courter, and for this reason is little serious competition on clay, must we conclude that Rosewall, Trabert, Hoad and Lendl are natural clay courters, and therefor not natural grass or HC courters, and therefor are little serious competition on these surfaces?

If Federer is not a natural clay courter, and for this reason is little serious competition on clay, must we conclude that Rosewall, Trabert, Hoad and Lendl are natural clay courters, and therefor not natural grass or HC courters, and therefor are little serious competition on these surfaces?

There was great depth in clay court play in the 1950's, and also the 1970's and 1980's.

The ability to play clay has diminished since then among the top players, and only Fed and Ferrer have consistently challenged the big clay titles against Nadal.

Sampras didn't even bother to learn to play on clay, unlike, for example, Gonzales or Budge, who both won important clay events.

The topic was comparing Nadal with Borg, and I pointed out that Borg's Wimbledon record was superior to Nadal.
Then someone jumped to Rosewall, forgetting the Nadal/Borg comparison.

Two different topics.

On clay, I would not rank Nadal above Rosewall, Trabert, or Hoad, or possibly Lendl.
All of these players were overwhelming on clay, and the first three competed against each other to divide up the RG titles of the era.

Nadal has had little serious competition on clay. Federer is not a natural clay player.

BS. nadal's level on clay is well and above that of anyone not named Bjorn Borg. His achievements surpass that of any one else. Trabert, Hoad , Lendl don't even come within a country mile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The ability to play clay has diminished since then among the top players, and only Fed and Ferrer have consistently challenged the big clay titles against Nadal.

I hope for your sake you meant fed and djokovic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Rosewall, Trabert, and Hoad were great on all surfaces.

so is federer FFS. He's not a natural CCer ? yet, rosewall, trabert, hoad were natural on every surface ? LOL !

Nadal should be in Tier 1. Borg cannot be placed in a higher Tier than Nadal.

I would have the same Tier 1 as you (those 7 players), but also with Nadal.

My feeling is that Nadal will be tier one when he finishes his career. I would just like to see more depth in his diversity (only 1 indoor masters 1000). Borg was fantastic on fast indoor carpet and very slow clay. I have to say that Nadal is the toughest player mentally that I have ever seen.

My feeling is that Nadal will be tier one when he finishes his career. I would just like to see more depth in his diversity (only 1 indoor masters 1000). Borg was fantastic on fast indoor carpet and very slow clay. I have to say that Nadal is the toughest player mentally that I have ever seen.

It is easy to be menthally tough against menthal midgets...

__________________
Whenever I walk in a London street, I am always so careful where I put my feet

my point is that Djokovic , not Ferrer has been amongst nadal's 2 top challengers on clay.

djokovic also lost 2 semis to nadal @ RG where he'd have a decent shot of winning the whole thing, also lost to federer in 11 where he'd have been the favorite in the final if he had got through the semi.

my point is that its outright hypocrisy ( actually cluelessness ) to say rosewall, trabert, hoad were very good ( & natural ) on every surface and in the same tone say federer is not a natural CCer .

my point is that Djokovic , not Ferrer has been amongst nadal's 2 top challengers on clay.

djokovic also lost 2 semis to nadal @ RG where he'd have a decent shot of winning the whole thing, also lost to federer in 11 where he'd have been the favorite in the final if he had got through the semi.

my point is that its outright hypocrisy ( actually cluelessness ) to say rosewall, trabert, hoad were very good ( & natural ) on every surface and in the same tone say federer is not a natural CCer .

It is certainly clueless to suggest that Fed could hope to survive on clay against the best clay-courters of the fifties Rosewall, Trabert, Hoad. Fed might be compared to Kramer or Gonzales or Sedgman on clay (all were very good on clay), but even Segura, Patty, or Drobny would probably prevail on clay against the Fed.

Fed has not played nearly enough clay tennis to develop the clay game of the fifties squad, all of whom spent much time learning to play on clay, especially the Aussies.

no, perhaps, you are not aware that trabert, hoad aren't even near a country mile of nadal's achievements on clay. only rosewall comes close.

and yeah, consecutive wimbledon finals from 2006-08 and 10-11 including winning in 08,10 really show nadal is not comfortable on grass.

Nadal could play on grass, but so could Santana and Gimeno.
All three would not make the cut for the top Wimbledon players.

Rosewall, Hoad, and Trabert all won at RG, and beat each other at RG in the fifties.
Rosewall was defeated in 1954 at RG by Davidson, who lost a ton of clay finals, including Roland Garros, to Hoad, who owned him on clay.
Hoad had a lifetime edge on clay against Rosewall (from 1952 to 1960, Hoad led Rosewall on clay 15 to 7) and Trabert.

Trabert won four Roland Garros titles in the fifties, beating Rosewall in 1959, but lost to Hoad at RG in 1958 and 1960.

Each one of these could beat the others, but Nadal has had no serious opposition in a weaker clay era.

It is certainly clueless to suggest that Fed could hope to survive on clay against the best clay-courters of the fifties Rosewall, Trabert, Hoad. Fed might be compared to Kramer or Gonzales or Sedgman on clay (all were very good on clay), but even Segura, Patty, or Drobny would probably prevail on clay against the Fed.

Fed has not played nearly enough clay tennis to develop the clay game of the fifties squad, all of whom spent much time learning to play on clay, especially the Aussies.

oh boy ! you do realize federer actually grew up playing on clay ?

and federer is much better than kramer/gonzales/sedgeman on clay.

and he'd be pretty competitive vs rosewall/trabert/hoad or any other CCer in history.

Nadal could play on grass, but so could Santana and Gimeno.
All three would not make the cut for the top Wimbledon players.

nadal is well and above santana and gimeno on grass . two wimbledons and 3 more finals.He defeated arguably the finest grass court player of all time at wimbledon ( having pushed him to 5 sets the year before ).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Rosewall, Hoad, and Trabert all won at RG, and beat each other at RG in the fifties.
Rosewall was defeated in 1954 at RG by Davidson, who lost a ton of clay finals, including Roland Garros, to Hoad, who owned him on clay.
Hoad had a lifetime edge on clay against Rosewall (from 1952 to 1960, Hoad led Rosewall on clay 15 to 7) and Trabert.

Trabert won four Roland Garros titles in the fifties, beating Rosewall in 1959, but lost to Hoad at RG in 1958 and 1960.

Each one of these could beat the others, but Nadal has had no serious opposition in a weaker clay era.

see previous post. And finally, I, like most others here, do not trust your so called h2h stats or any sort of stats pertaining to hoad